The Bulletin
of the
Church of Christ at
New Georgia
Tim Johnson, editor
September 26, 2004
In
This Issue:
Looking
into the Tomb
by
Steve Klein
Fathers
and Spiritual Headship
by
Jason Moore
Looking Into The Tomb
At first the news that Mary Magdalene brought the apostles "seemed like idle tales" (Luke 24:11). It was the Sunday morning after the Crucifixion and Jesus' tomb was empty! How could this be? Maybe the body had been stolen. Or maybe He had come back to life. Who could believe it?
It must have occurred to Peter and another disciple (probably John), that Mary's words may not be just an idle tale. They surely knew that Jesus' lifeless body had been carefully laid to rest (John 19:42). The tomb had been sealed and guarded, so no one could have stolen the body (Matthew 27:66). How could the tomb be empty?
Peter and the other disciple arose, went out, "and ran to the tomb" (John 20:3-4; Luke 24:12). Arriving first, the other disciple stooped down and looked into the tomb. When Peter arrived, they both went in. They saw the linen burial clothes lying there and the handkerchief that had been around Jesus' head folded together in a place by itself. Later, Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb weeping. She too, "stooped down and looked into the tomb" (John 20:11).
That day the lives of Mary, Peter, and the other disciple were changed forever. They had looked into the tomb. Seven weeks later, the apostle Peter stood before a multitude of Jews and challenged them to look into the tomb (Acts 2:22-35). The bones of David could be exhumed from his tomb, but not so the body of Jesus. That day, the empty tomb and the testimony of eye witnesses compelled 3,000 souls to believe that God had made this Jesus "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).
If it is true that Jesus was raised from the dead, every claim and promise that He ever made must be believed as well. How could we doubt One who has demonstrated power over death itself? Truly He was, "declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). One of the key pieces of evidence that the apostles offered to prove the resurrection of Christ was the empty tomb. Why is the tomb of Jesus empty? Have you looked into it?
By Steve Klein
As Israel stood on the plains of Moab preparing for the occupation of Canaan, Moses addressed the need of the hour. His address was a sermon not a speech. Its emphasis was moral nor military nor political. One of the key issues he addressed was the need for fathers to be the spiritual leaders of their own households.
"And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up" (Deuteronomy 6:6-7). Moses' charge is no new command-ment. Male headship is implied in the order of creation "for man does not originate from woman, but woman from man" (1 Corinthians 11:8). Male headship is formally stated with the creation of woman, "I will make him a helper suitable for him" (Genesis 2: 18) so that "indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake" (1 Corinthians 11:9). God's expectation that man be the spiritual leader of his house is further indicated by the fact that though Eve partook first of the fruit, it was Adam that God addressed: "The Lord God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'" (Genesis 3:9).
The apostle Paul indicates that the transgression of Adam and Eve involved the folly of role reversal. Adam abandoned his post and Eve deserted hers. House-holds can be saved from the mistake of Adam and Eve if men and women stay in their places and function in the rules for which God equipped them (1 Timothy 2:14--15). That not only involves women submitting to male leadership, but men exercising headship in the area most needed - spiritual affairs. And it involves them exercising such headship in the home not just the church.
Countless biblical examples illustrate the positive effects of male leadership in spiritual affairs and the negative impact when such leadership in the home is abdicated. Abraham understood the responsibility of leading his family in spiritual affairs. He built an altar wherever he tented (Genesis 12:7; 13:18). And built it first, I might add. However, Lot exer-cised leadership in seeking a materially promising abode for his family, but, in choosing the "valley of the Jordan," brought both the spiritual ruin and material disaster of his household (Genesis 13:10-11). Job offered sacrifices for his sons and daughters (Job 1:5) and Noah, taking charge of his family in a decadent age, "in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household" (Hebrews 11:7). When men lead, the family prospers. When men shirk their God-given role, the family flounders.
The evidence further indicates that God holds fathers chiefly responsible when the family goes wrong. Though Eli the priest was himself a godly man he did nothing to control the ungodly behavior of his sons and was held accountable by God for his negligence (1 Samuel 2:29). Joshua accepted responsibility, not just for himself, but for the occupants of his household when he stated, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). The book of Proverbs is the inspired example of a father fulfilling his responsibility for teaching his son "when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up" (Deuteronomy 6:7).
Adam, in contrast to the father in Proverbs, yielded the seat of instruction and became the disciple. "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife," God said to Adam (Genesis 3:17), "cursed is the ground because of you." Adam listened instead of leading. He was influenced instead of influencing. A qualified elder is one {who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity" (1 Timothy 3:4). Qualified deacons are to be "good managers of their children and their own households" (1 Timothy 3:12). Elders and deacons are not to be the exceptions. They are rather to be an example of the rule among believers. Fathers are responsible. The Father charged them to be leaders. The Creator equipped them to be leaders. The household will not function properly without their leadership.
What are some conclusions to be reached from the Biblical imperatives, examples, and implications concerning the spiritual headship of fathers?
1. A father is to be the spiritual leader in his home, not just the church. Men generally understand the principles of headship in local churches, but mothers are left to make sure the children have their Bible lessons. If such is the model in your home, you're deserting your post as a father.
2. A father is to be an example of spiritual principles to his family. Sons and daughters know when Dad goes to church only because Mom makes him. And what father can effectively discipline his son for smoking or drinking or swearing when he does the same? What instruction can be given about peer influence when his own friends repudiate godliness and piety?
3. When children grow up not knowing the books of the Bible, and more about the Houston Astros than the twelve disciples, it's the father's fault. "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). That's a direct command - just as clear as "repent and be baptized, every one of you." The church is not responsible when children grow up ignorant of the Bible. The church can only supplement, not supplant, the instruction in the home. The bible class teacher, the elder, the preacher cannot possibly lay in roughly two or two--and-one-half hours instruction per week the foundation required for the other one hundred sixty-four. They are not charged to do so. Nor are they equipped to do so. But fathers - they are.
By Jason Moore